In the most recent Pine Bluff homicide, the alleged shooter told police she was the victim of protracted harassment by the victim. Specifically, she told Pine Bluff Police Department Detective Bill Wiegand that the victim had, “bullied her, pushed her into a corner, called her names, sabotaged her machine, and took trash from her (the victim’s) work area and put it in (the suspect’s) work area.”
Whether this version of events is substantiated in court hearings yet to come, it evokes a number of important points about workplace violence and harassment. The U. S. Department of Labor delineates two general categories of workplace harassment: Quid pro quo (this for that) harassment and; hostile work environment harassment. According to the Department of Labor, Quid pro quo harassment, “…generally results in a tangible employment decision based upon the employee’s acceptance or rejection of unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, but it can also result from unwelcome conduct that is of a religious nature. This kind of harassment is generally committed by someone who can effectively make or recommend formal employment decisions (such as termination, demotion, or denial of promotion) that will affect the victim.”
Examples of this might be: a supervisor who fires or denies promotion to a subordinate for refusing to be sexually cooperative; a supervisor requires a subordinate to participate in religious activities as a condition of employment; a supervisor offers preferential treatment/promotion if subordinate sexually cooperates or joins supervisor’s religion.
The DOL states that hostile work environment harassment, “… can result from the unwelcome conduct of supervisors, co-workers, customers, contractors, or anyone else with whom the victim interacts on the job, and the unwelcome conduct renders the workplace atmosphere intimidating, hostile, or offensive.”
The DOL provides several examples as to how a hostile work environment might manifest: discussing sexual activities; telling off-color jokes concerning race, sex, disability, or other protected bases; unnecessary touching; commenting on physical attributes; displaying sexually suggestive or racially insensitive pictures; using demeaning or inappropriate terms or epithets; using indecent gestures; using crude language; sabotaging the victim’s work; engaging in hostile physical conduct.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
The DOL very carefully enumerates the criteria necessary for harassment to become a violation of federal law. First the harassment must be both unwelcome and based on the victim’s protected status. Second, it must also be: subjectively abusive to the person affected; and objectively severe and pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. To establish whether the second criteria are met the DOL provides a lengthy list of scenarios available at its website: https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/2011-workplace-harassment.htm.
Perhaps more important than whether harassment is criminally prosecutable is the matter of how it may negatively impact the workplace. The DOL notes that harassment may be psychologically and emotionally painful or have negative consequences for the victim, while still being legally permissible. To address this rather mammoth gap, the DOL suggest that employers adopt an anti-harassment organizational policy. The DOL provides this example, “Therefore, for the purposes of the Harassing Conduct Policy, harassing conduct is defined more broadly as ‘any unwelcome verbal or physical conduct based on any characteristic protected by law when: (1) the behavior can reasonably be considered to adversely affect the work environment; or (2) an employment decision affecting the employee is based upon the employee’s acceptance or rejection of such conduct.’ Conduct that ‘adversely affects the work environment,’ even though it may not be ‘severe or pervasive’ as required under federal law, is prohibited by the Harassing Conduct Policy.”
By defining harassing behavior as misconduct, the organization then has leverage with which to take disciplinary or other remedial action.
Perhaps most importantly, the DOL reminds us that it is every employee’s personal responsibility to report harassing or inappropriate conduct; and it is management’s obligation to take prompt action, to investigate and to effect remedy sufficient to eliminate the harassing or inappropriate conduct.